This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From the end of the first paragraph it should read - Fascism is a political philosophy philosophized by Giovanni Gentile. Widely regarded by people of the political Right to be "the man the Left does not want you to meet". Because after studying Gentile, you very quickly discover that Fascism was never actually a right-wing ideology at all. It was a political Philosophy philosophized by a Socialist (Giovanni Gentile) that was inspired by Liberals (Benedetto Croce) and enacted by Socialists (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or NAZI Party)). Mussolini was the first to politically introduce Fascism and although a life-long Socialist, is regarded to have changed mindset to that of the Fascists shortly after having been removed from Italy's Socialist magazine Avanti. In fact, Mussolini left the Socialist magazine with several other Socialist editors due to a disagreement between himself and the publisher over Italy's involvement in the war in Libya. Mussolini still remained a Socialist after having left the publication, if anything, he just got much more extreme, thus the Fascism. Some people say Fascism was right-wing because the people who enacted it's ideals, such as the Nazi's, were Nationalistic, militaristic, and/or Racist. Although this is true, the NAZI's were all those things, the idea that Nationalism, Militarism and whether or not your Racist has anything to do with where you sit on a political spectrum is completely nonsensical. Your position on this traditional left-right spectrum is actually ultimately defined, first and foremost, by economics. It's also got a lot to do with how exactly it is you believe society needs to change; The left believe it's the institutions, and the right believe it's the individual. In summary, left-wing political choreographers have misconstrued the true definition of political philosophies for nearly a century now and so it will continue to be said that Fascism belongs on the far political right, when in fact, the evidence does, unfortunately for the Left, point toward them. 194.74.3.138 ( talk) 20:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" To: "Historically, fascist movements formed in opposition to other ideologies, such as liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism by encouraging revolutionary elements on the left while courting conservative elements on the right," adding Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-22. as a source and removing Hartley, John (2004). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 187. Rationale: Original statement is only partly accurate; while several of the sources (specifically, Davies and Lynch; Stackelberg) do place Fascism on the far-right of the political spectrum, they are specific theoretical models in response to the more nuanced views in the field. Based on the sources that cover a diverse array of historians and models, the revision is more accurate. Additionally, the citations include an inaccurate use of Hartley; source is not an authority on Fascism and does not cover "Fascism" as a key concept within the book.
Please change: "Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum" To: "Because of its varied, historical emergence on both sides of the political spectrum, scholars have struggled to place Fascism in a fixed position," again adding Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-22. as a source and removing Hartley, John (2004). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 187. Rationale: Inaccurate use of Hartley; source is not an authority on Fascism and does not cover "Fascism" as a key concept within the book.
Please change: "Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[46][47]" To: "Scholarship that places it on the far right generally focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." Rationale: Many historians avoid trying to place Fascism on the political spectrum and argue that it is impossible to do. Stackelberg is an exception who deliberately makes the attempt in his book. This change clarifies the sentence as a specific effort by historians rather than a consensus view.
Please change: "Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be" To: "Roderick Stackelberg notes that most historians "regard fascism as a mixture of left and right, or a movement that is 'neither left nor right.'" While he places fascism on the political right, he notes the difficulty in reconciling the contemporary praise in National Socialism as a movement from the left, considered "highly creative and progressive national culture" with the emergence of Nazism, which he says is a "radical variant of fascism." Stackelberg, Roderick Hitler's Germany, Routledge, 1999, pp. 4. Rationale: Again, Stackelberg's statements were specific to his effort in his book, not representative of a consensus view from Historians on placement of Fascism in a political spectrum.
Please change: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities [44]" To: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by an eventual push toward authoritarian structures as a relief to perceived economic, social, or political inequities." adding Aristotle A. Kallis. The fascism reader. New York, New York: Routledge, 2003. p. 24-25 and removing "Historians Weigh In On Our Fascist Fears About Trump's America". thefader.com. Retrieved 22 October 2017. Rationale: The original claim source had a clear bias and publication outside of peer-reviewed scholarship; revisions reflect established scholarship from Aristotle Kallis' summary of historical models of fascism. Contributor451 ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Fascism is not strictly a right-wing ideology; if not at least bipartisan, it is more left-wing. Oktayey ( talk) 00:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the title of an article by Jack D. Douglas in which he propose other parameters to define a fascist society in which US can be seen as one. May be those ideas (he is not the only author talking about that) should have at least a little space in this article. -- El Hoy ( talk) 19:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." to
To "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarianism,[1] characterized by dictatorial power, suppression of opposition, nationalism,[2] and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
I believe the current wording unnecessarily restricts the scope of Fascism -
Although nationalism is a very important characteristic to note, I oppose that Fascism MUST include Nationalism as the current wording prescribes.
I believe Dictatorial power and suppression of opposition are also more primary characteristics of General Fascism whereas Nationalism is more prominent in some instances than others. Scmartinez23 ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Please discuss this on
Template talk:Revolution sidebar
|
---|
The historical French painting of Liberty Leading the People is extremely inappropriate for a thumbnail to represent this article. This is because there is no correlation between the painting or the social movements associated with the painting to fascism. JoeAmazon ( talk) 02:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeAmazon ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you might wrong because this is about the thumbnail displayed for the article on fascism. This is the correct place right? JoeAmazon ( talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
|
H624
Even if we are not talking about the revolution sidebar? Where is the thumbnail for the fascism article edited? I repeat for the article on fascism. Not revolution. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok I'll head over there but I have a feeling I'll get sent back here. Wish me luck. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok I went there and it's about the revolution sidebar. I'm talking about this here fascism article. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok I got it done. I posted over at the revolution sidebar but it's about this here article on fascism. We'll see how it goes. Thank you. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't look like the right place. Pretty bare over there. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party of Lebanon has been accused by Daniel Pipes of being fascist, with its flag being one key piece of evidence, while defenders of the SSNP have pointed to the name of their adversaries, the Phalange, as evidence that it is fascist. Strikes me that both examples fit that quote. Should something on this be added? Ricardianman ( talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The etymology section is lacking more information pertaining to the evolution of the word from the 1920's-1930's. I recommend adding the following to your existing article section:
"1922, originally used in English in 1920
Note: Copyvio redacted. 68.88.28.30 ( talk) 13:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What explains the revolutionary sidebox on this article?
Fascism could definitely be described as radical but both Italian fascism and National(ist) Socialism appear to have been characterized by reactionary cultural views.
Not only that, but fascism is recognized today as possibly having been syncretic like third position and consequentialist, which would make it some kind of ideological chameleon.
The article itself has seven counts of the word reactionary and, even if it says that revolutionary action was supported, the question is whether fascism wanted to get rid of the current status quo or sought to return to a previous one.
Palingenetic ultranationalism and a slogan such as "Make Germany great again" would suggest the latter.
Looking forward to your thoughts about this as the revolutionary label by itself may be misleading in conflating it with the kind of revolution that marked Russian-style communism.-- JamesPoulson ( talk) 00:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
the fascists appealed to cultural conservatives by opposing new trends in the 1920s, such as freer sex, flappers, homosexuality and new gender roles. I added the statement: Though Fascism adopted a number of anti-modern positions designed to appeal to people upset with the new trends in sexuality and women's rights, but it got deleted and replaced with a meaningless statement Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries which mentions no positions whatever and refers to mysterious "reactionaries" not otherwise identified. The edit comment is "That isn't the only group of people they were appealing to and the only reasons." -- but the editor is unwilling to tell us what group of people and policies he has in mind. Rjensen ( talk) 03:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" to " fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum but the tenants of fascism are actually closer to today's far-left policies such as large central government, redistribution of wealth, and censorship or policing of speech". 12.195.127.74 ( talk) 11:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the sources of the first sentence, quotes have been provided in the citation of the section of text referring to the statement in that sentence, it does not speak of "ultranationalism", it speaks of "nationalism". If you wish to change the first sentence to say it supported ultranationalism with a good citation that supports that then that is fine, but it appears that this was changed to say "ultranationalism" without taking into account what the sources actually say.
Please decide whether to make a new sentence with citations that speak of ultranationalism or otherwise have the current sentence reflect what the current sources actually say - it should be fairly easy to do so since they are quoted in the citations unless those quotes are wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 ( talk) 17:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that fascism is anti-conservative and then also states that it is conservative. This is impossible and illogical. Stating that fascism is conservative should be omitted from the page. Apache9a ( talk) 23:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
L293D (
☎ •
✎) 13:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Below is a part of my edit 'redefining' fascism. I have added a better and more accurate description, yet it was taken down! Please if all seems "fine" may someone revert/redo my edit and make it final? Cheers.
" Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a range of economic and social systems characterised by class collaboration, radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.[5] Fascism came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe[6] when the first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries.[6] There are many varieties of fascism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[7] Though being opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, is common. Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][8][9][10][11][12]
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It begins by saying that Fascism is on the far-right and is against Marxism. It later talks about how Mussolini "organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations". You can only do that if you seize control of the corporations that already exist. The fact that they banned strikes is just what happens when the government takes control of all business. The economic policy was much closer to a modified Socialist, Communist, or Marxist type of government than a Capitalist system. The fact that the Fascists rounded up communists and socialists is more similar to a sibling rivalry than anything else. It is also more a function of the dictatorial regime that wanted to implement its own form of government regulated economy and silence all other views than it is an outright opposition to socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.13.24 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
How about the argument that Mussolini was arrested on a socialist demonstration that turned violent, wrote extensively about Socialism, edited Italy's leading Socialist newspaper for 5 years, and never disavowed Socialism, can those arguments be used to prove 'anyone is a leftist'? Or just prove Mussolini was? They seem pretty water tight and iron clad, historically. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:A0EF:4C11:1850:361F ( talk) 16:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's take it back to zero; ignore all the personal exchanges, the likely political connections people make with non-synonymous terms and go from Aquillion and TFD's basic observations
1. Even when Fascist governments allied themselves with rich industrialists they advocated significant control of market structure and distribution of Capital. In the United States at least this is usually an identifying "Left" *economic* policy
2.Fascism's chief common trait is reactionary nationalism, in the ethnic sense, that advocates "fatherly" Authoritarianism to protect from the "other". This is internationally and historically a "Right" *social* position.
The "Wing" concept taken from the French legislature isn't a great fit for governments that greatly differ from parliamentary systems. Many times, and in the US especially, distinguishing between economic and social policies is overlooked so often that an implicit association becomes difficult to shake.
Saying that National Socialism resembles early Marxism/modern Socialism is absurd. They essentially identify Race as the historical source of misery across classes where Socialism identifies Class as the source across all ethnic lines. They're diametrically opposed.
Saying that National Socialism resembles Libertarianism is absurd. They prescribe strong unbridled authority to solve and protect from society's ills at the expense of individual liberty and actively interfere in the market. They're also diametrically opposed.
Both on ONE axis. Being able to find plenty of racist Socialists or Corporatists who hope to use a lack of government oversight on business to manifest a segragated society doesn't change the meaning of the concepts.
The Nazi's are much more important to history for their social impact than their internal economic policy, so if a "wing" is going to be applied it should probably be Right. But that word really doesn't accurately describe the entire ideology so if it's going to be used it's absolutely worth elaborating or else Wikipedia continues to perpetuate the unwinnable shouting match over whether the resemblance to Soviet Authoritarianism or the Racial Supremacy actually matters more in gleefully painting your enemies as their spiritual successors.
...Sorry. I'm done. That this question was asked and is asked very frequently elsewhere really does convince me it needs to be better explained here. FusionTorch ( talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your source for classifying fascism as far-right is patently flawed. All traits described are common to all socialist/communist governments and then the text calls it "far-right". This is typical of left wing revisionism. Read Hayek to get a clue. 2600:1008:B12B:D2CF:F05D:BC70:B206:750A ( talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B100:3549:304B:7E0B:32C1:34B9 ( talk) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last line of the overview: "The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied ..." both "neo-fascist" and "post-fascist" link to the same page: neo-facism. This implies that the pages are different. For the clarity that they have the same meaning, remove the link from the text: "post-fascist." 18atcskd2w ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The claim is made at the beginning that fascism is opposed to anarchy--and thus placed on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum. This is nonsensical as anarchy is as far right as you can go on the same traditional scale. 47.134.88.208 ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Look, I know fascism is a distorted view of nationalism, but something about how the article's written just doesn't sound neutral. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Has anyone provided a source that shows this "academic consensus" or better yet, a clear classification of fascism as right wing? It seems that, for all of the resistance to accommodate the many reasons given to place fascism on the left, there ought to at least be minimal evidence supporting the current right wing classification this article attempts. Hayek's argument was that the conflict of communism and fascism was an "in house conflict" as they were ideologies that were grouped together. He compared their conflict with a conflict between Catholics and Lutherans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.40.214 ( talk) 09:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, just looking for a consensus to change the introduction to a more accurate and detailed manner:
" Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a range of economic and social systems characterised by class collaboration, ethnic nationalism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, dictatorial power and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascism promotes strong regimentation of society under traditionalism. Nationalisation of key industries important to the economy, in conjunction with the belief in third positionism to endeavour autarky. There are many varieties of fascism, such as Nazism, each with their own national variant related to a national identity. There is no single definition encapsulating all tenets and varieties, as it is often debated. Commonly speaking, it is opposed to the ideas of Communism, Marxism, Liberalism, globalism and anarchism. Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, all though some argue that it is not applicable to such a paradigm. Italian Fascism was the first to emerge during the early 20th-century Europe as a result of World War I, before it spread to other European countries. "
Let us consider if it is acceptable. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
No reliable sources given, an we're getting deep into WP:NOTAFORUM territory at this point. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Political ideologies do not necessarily fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not suggest otherwise. In addition, note that in multiple places the article actually says that fascism takes things from various sides and is against things from various sides. Having an entire section on this misguided question even suggests that this point has actual importance which is completely misleading. I already proposed and edit which removed the few placements outside the particular section and the particular section completely. I guess the main question here is whether there is any good justification for including this stuff. -- Technokratisch ( talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If nobody can see the elegance in these omissions and how they would completely pull the rug from under the feet of those anybody that claims that fascism is this or that wing then so be it. I really cannot understand why you all are so fond of this dichotomy. It is 2018. Why include it? Why? Why? Why? Emphasis on why?-- Technokratisch ( talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
|
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(x Remove) [1] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
(y Add) Fascism a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. </ref> [7] Large government overseeing is familiar as the far-left political goal like Communism (China for example) and in socialism (as in Venezuela currently (2018-current)). As socialists & communist see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)</ref> [8]. Hilter, a known Fascist, created his government and party know as National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) or short for Nazi </ref> [9]. As there party's actions dictated, Hitler took over Germany's economy, military and people by appointing himself a soul leader or Führer </ref> [10]; they were socialist extremist, practiced socialistic views while holding Germany people hostage of economic growth: therefor Fascism considered far-left on the political spectrum along with liberalism, Marxism and anarchism. 2600:8802:901:E400:9CFD:6D4A:A58:1623 ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't Giovanni Gentile get a mention in these various articles about Fascism, whether "left" or "right" forms of Fascism?
I refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA and https://www.wnd.com/2017/08/fascisms-karl-marx-man-the-left-doesnt-want-you-to-meet/
It is history nonetheless, and it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.201.227 ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. 31.53.201.227 ( talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I was told I needed references supporting the fact that fascism is an left-wing extreme. So... here
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/history-of-left-wing-fascism
Tell me if I need more sources. If so I can find them.
Chris Roe234 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Unproductive and way off-topic chit chat. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jumpoutboy ( talk) 06:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." I don't see why "fascism" can't just exist as defined this way: "a form of radical athoritarianism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and/or/sometimes the economy." Because then I can apply it to, Antifa, and the left in general. Otherwise, can you tell me what Antifa is or the radical left when they use force to silence opposition and violently oppose political opposition within the society in a non-nationalist form of anarchy hard to define or understand? A movement seeming to stand for it's own conceptual moral authoritarian and dictatorial power through forcible suppression of nationalist patriotic opposition. They mobilize in regimental protest order that is devoid of independent thought and sing a party phrase. Are they communist social anarchist, and why do we have to confine fascist to a right-hand political wing in order to give them a talking point in that protest? I'm confused why the fascist definition seems to be antiquated in a 1950's Webster format that doesn't match the current applicable use of the term that society seems to have chosen unanimously as a reversal of meaning to address Antifa and the left in general. Can you clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpoutboy ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Agenda.... Lets examine agenda when we talk citations. Who are we sighting in those bracketed numbers, are they proponents of the left themselves, and if so, why do they get the authority to choose whether fascism is a right-wingers policy? Rhetorical, as I won't get an honest or unbiased answer about that. Moving along... The summation of the definition as stated is for one place in time, and ere the agenda may reside, agenda is secondary to a factual observation about the polity in question. In short, America, the United States thereof, being the place, the observance being the application by leftists of fascism to the right in this nation. Has it not struck anyone here, that to call an ultra-nationalist in America a fascist is an intellectual and political oxymoron? As America from the historic narrative has always been patriotic/ultra-national. Ergo, to be on the right as an American is to back the precepts and ordinances of the Constitution, and thereby, support leftist activism's right to exist, and to protest the very institutions we uphold. One literally can not be fascist in that regard, when the nationalism espoused is the full support of liberal democracy and republican libertarian dogma. If that is defined as opposite to fascism according to my dated 50's dictionary, which apparently is a good source to put into brackets, then it can not by definition be fascism at all. Hence, application of the term where it can not only be applied in social commentary, but also be observed in the persona non grata, seeking to apply the term and any leftist group or opinion seeking to keep it the "right's" burden in perception. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpoutboy ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry, for not knowing how to sign my posts and all, this is the first thing I have ever typed on a wiki page. Jumpoutboy ( talk) 06:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
While fascism is ethnically and culturally far-right, the article fails to mention that it is economically far-left because one of the key ideas of fascism is that the economy is to be tightly controlled in order to benefit the state, and while businesses may technically be private, they are heavily influenced by a central government. The article literally implies it in the first paragraph with: "characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."
This is also why it has been argued that it is in some way incompatable with the left-right spectrum, because it is made up of ideas from both the extreme right and left.
Although due to the current sociopolitical paradigm in the western world as of today, I doubt that this inconsistency will be taken into account or even recognised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 ( talk • contribs)
it is economically far-left because one of the key ideas of fascism is that the economy is to be tightly controlled in order to benefit the statThat is not a left-wing political philosophy, and if you want to see the article changed, you need reliable sources to support your change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
RoutledgeCompanion
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).university
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aristotle
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
/info/en/?search=German_Workers%27_Party
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
/info/en/?search=F%C3%BChrer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From the end of the first paragraph it should read - Fascism is a political philosophy philosophized by Giovanni Gentile. Widely regarded by people of the political Right to be "the man the Left does not want you to meet". Because after studying Gentile, you very quickly discover that Fascism was never actually a right-wing ideology at all. It was a political Philosophy philosophized by a Socialist (Giovanni Gentile) that was inspired by Liberals (Benedetto Croce) and enacted by Socialists (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP or NAZI Party)). Mussolini was the first to politically introduce Fascism and although a life-long Socialist, is regarded to have changed mindset to that of the Fascists shortly after having been removed from Italy's Socialist magazine Avanti. In fact, Mussolini left the Socialist magazine with several other Socialist editors due to a disagreement between himself and the publisher over Italy's involvement in the war in Libya. Mussolini still remained a Socialist after having left the publication, if anything, he just got much more extreme, thus the Fascism. Some people say Fascism was right-wing because the people who enacted it's ideals, such as the Nazi's, were Nationalistic, militaristic, and/or Racist. Although this is true, the NAZI's were all those things, the idea that Nationalism, Militarism and whether or not your Racist has anything to do with where you sit on a political spectrum is completely nonsensical. Your position on this traditional left-right spectrum is actually ultimately defined, first and foremost, by economics. It's also got a lot to do with how exactly it is you believe society needs to change; The left believe it's the institutions, and the right believe it's the individual. In summary, left-wing political choreographers have misconstrued the true definition of political philosophies for nearly a century now and so it will continue to be said that Fascism belongs on the far political right, when in fact, the evidence does, unfortunately for the Left, point toward them. 194.74.3.138 ( talk) 20:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" To: "Historically, fascist movements formed in opposition to other ideologies, such as liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism by encouraging revolutionary elements on the left while courting conservative elements on the right," adding Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-22. as a source and removing Hartley, John (2004). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 187. Rationale: Original statement is only partly accurate; while several of the sources (specifically, Davies and Lynch; Stackelberg) do place Fascism on the far-right of the political spectrum, they are specific theoretical models in response to the more nuanced views in the field. Based on the sources that cover a diverse array of historians and models, the revision is more accurate. Additionally, the citations include an inaccurate use of Hartley; source is not an authority on Fascism and does not cover "Fascism" as a key concept within the book.
Please change: "Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum" To: "Because of its varied, historical emergence on both sides of the political spectrum, scholars have struggled to place Fascism in a fixed position," again adding Passmore, Kevin. Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-22. as a source and removing Hartley, John (2004). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.). Routledge. p. 187. Rationale: Inaccurate use of Hartley; source is not an authority on Fascism and does not cover "Fascism" as a key concept within the book.
Please change: "Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[46][47]" To: "Scholarship that places it on the far right generally focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism." Rationale: Many historians avoid trying to place Fascism on the political spectrum and argue that it is impossible to do. Stackelberg is an exception who deliberately makes the attempt in his book. This change clarifies the sentence as a specific effort by historians rather than a consensus view.
Please change: "Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be" To: "Roderick Stackelberg notes that most historians "regard fascism as a mixture of left and right, or a movement that is 'neither left nor right.'" While he places fascism on the political right, he notes the difficulty in reconciling the contemporary praise in National Socialism as a movement from the left, considered "highly creative and progressive national culture" with the emergence of Nazism, which he says is a "radical variant of fascism." Stackelberg, Roderick Hitler's Germany, Routledge, 1999, pp. 4. Rationale: Again, Stackelberg's statements were specific to his effort in his book, not representative of a consensus view from Historians on placement of Fascism in a political spectrum.
Please change: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities [44]" To: "Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by an eventual push toward authoritarian structures as a relief to perceived economic, social, or political inequities." adding Aristotle A. Kallis. The fascism reader. New York, New York: Routledge, 2003. p. 24-25 and removing "Historians Weigh In On Our Fascist Fears About Trump's America". thefader.com. Retrieved 22 October 2017. Rationale: The original claim source had a clear bias and publication outside of peer-reviewed scholarship; revisions reflect established scholarship from Aristotle Kallis' summary of historical models of fascism. Contributor451 ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Fascism is not strictly a right-wing ideology; if not at least bipartisan, it is more left-wing. Oktayey ( talk) 00:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the title of an article by Jack D. Douglas in which he propose other parameters to define a fascist society in which US can be seen as one. May be those ideas (he is not the only author talking about that) should have at least a little space in this article. -- El Hoy ( talk) 19:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe." to
To "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarianism,[1] characterized by dictatorial power, suppression of opposition, nationalism,[2] and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."
I believe the current wording unnecessarily restricts the scope of Fascism -
Although nationalism is a very important characteristic to note, I oppose that Fascism MUST include Nationalism as the current wording prescribes.
I believe Dictatorial power and suppression of opposition are also more primary characteristics of General Fascism whereas Nationalism is more prominent in some instances than others. Scmartinez23 ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Wrong venue. Please discuss this on
Template talk:Revolution sidebar
|
---|
The historical French painting of Liberty Leading the People is extremely inappropriate for a thumbnail to represent this article. This is because there is no correlation between the painting or the social movements associated with the painting to fascism. JoeAmazon ( talk) 02:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeAmazon ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you might wrong because this is about the thumbnail displayed for the article on fascism. This is the correct place right? JoeAmazon ( talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
|
H624
Even if we are not talking about the revolution sidebar? Where is the thumbnail for the fascism article edited? I repeat for the article on fascism. Not revolution. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok I'll head over there but I have a feeling I'll get sent back here. Wish me luck. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok I went there and it's about the revolution sidebar. I'm talking about this here fascism article. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok I got it done. I posted over at the revolution sidebar but it's about this here article on fascism. We'll see how it goes. Thank you. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't look like the right place. Pretty bare over there. JoeAmazon ( talk) 04:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party of Lebanon has been accused by Daniel Pipes of being fascist, with its flag being one key piece of evidence, while defenders of the SSNP have pointed to the name of their adversaries, the Phalange, as evidence that it is fascist. Strikes me that both examples fit that quote. Should something on this be added? Ricardianman ( talk) 15:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The etymology section is lacking more information pertaining to the evolution of the word from the 1920's-1930's. I recommend adding the following to your existing article section:
"1922, originally used in English in 1920
Note: Copyvio redacted. 68.88.28.30 ( talk) 13:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
What explains the revolutionary sidebox on this article?
Fascism could definitely be described as radical but both Italian fascism and National(ist) Socialism appear to have been characterized by reactionary cultural views.
Not only that, but fascism is recognized today as possibly having been syncretic like third position and consequentialist, which would make it some kind of ideological chameleon.
The article itself has seven counts of the word reactionary and, even if it says that revolutionary action was supported, the question is whether fascism wanted to get rid of the current status quo or sought to return to a previous one.
Palingenetic ultranationalism and a slogan such as "Make Germany great again" would suggest the latter.
Looking forward to your thoughts about this as the revolutionary label by itself may be misleading in conflating it with the kind of revolution that marked Russian-style communism.-- JamesPoulson ( talk) 00:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
the fascists appealed to cultural conservatives by opposing new trends in the 1920s, such as freer sex, flappers, homosexuality and new gender roles. I added the statement: Though Fascism adopted a number of anti-modern positions designed to appeal to people upset with the new trends in sexuality and women's rights, but it got deleted and replaced with a meaningless statement Though Fascism adopted a number of positions designed to appeal to reactionaries which mentions no positions whatever and refers to mysterious "reactionaries" not otherwise identified. The edit comment is "That isn't the only group of people they were appealing to and the only reasons." -- but the editor is unwilling to tell us what group of people and policies he has in mind. Rjensen ( talk) 03:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum" to " fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum but the tenants of fascism are actually closer to today's far-left policies such as large central government, redistribution of wealth, and censorship or policing of speech". 12.195.127.74 ( talk) 11:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the sources of the first sentence, quotes have been provided in the citation of the section of text referring to the statement in that sentence, it does not speak of "ultranationalism", it speaks of "nationalism". If you wish to change the first sentence to say it supported ultranationalism with a good citation that supports that then that is fine, but it appears that this was changed to say "ultranationalism" without taking into account what the sources actually say.
Please decide whether to make a new sentence with citations that speak of ultranationalism or otherwise have the current sentence reflect what the current sources actually say - it should be fairly easy to do so since they are quoted in the citations unless those quotes are wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.232.48 ( talk) 17:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that fascism is anti-conservative and then also states that it is conservative. This is impossible and illogical. Stating that fascism is conservative should be omitted from the page. Apache9a ( talk) 23:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
L293D (
☎ •
✎) 13:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Below is a part of my edit 'redefining' fascism. I have added a better and more accurate description, yet it was taken down! Please if all seems "fine" may someone revert/redo my edit and make it final? Cheers.
" Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a range of economic and social systems characterised by class collaboration, radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.[5] Fascism came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe[6] when the first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries.[6] There are many varieties of fascism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[7] Though being opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, is common. Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[6][8][9][10][11][12]
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It begins by saying that Fascism is on the far-right and is against Marxism. It later talks about how Mussolini "organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations". You can only do that if you seize control of the corporations that already exist. The fact that they banned strikes is just what happens when the government takes control of all business. The economic policy was much closer to a modified Socialist, Communist, or Marxist type of government than a Capitalist system. The fact that the Fascists rounded up communists and socialists is more similar to a sibling rivalry than anything else. It is also more a function of the dictatorial regime that wanted to implement its own form of government regulated economy and silence all other views than it is an outright opposition to socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.13.24 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
How about the argument that Mussolini was arrested on a socialist demonstration that turned violent, wrote extensively about Socialism, edited Italy's leading Socialist newspaper for 5 years, and never disavowed Socialism, can those arguments be used to prove 'anyone is a leftist'? Or just prove Mussolini was? They seem pretty water tight and iron clad, historically. http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/07/29/benito-mussolini-socialist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8A4D:7500:A0EF:4C11:1850:361F ( talk) 16:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Let's take it back to zero; ignore all the personal exchanges, the likely political connections people make with non-synonymous terms and go from Aquillion and TFD's basic observations
1. Even when Fascist governments allied themselves with rich industrialists they advocated significant control of market structure and distribution of Capital. In the United States at least this is usually an identifying "Left" *economic* policy
2.Fascism's chief common trait is reactionary nationalism, in the ethnic sense, that advocates "fatherly" Authoritarianism to protect from the "other". This is internationally and historically a "Right" *social* position.
The "Wing" concept taken from the French legislature isn't a great fit for governments that greatly differ from parliamentary systems. Many times, and in the US especially, distinguishing between economic and social policies is overlooked so often that an implicit association becomes difficult to shake.
Saying that National Socialism resembles early Marxism/modern Socialism is absurd. They essentially identify Race as the historical source of misery across classes where Socialism identifies Class as the source across all ethnic lines. They're diametrically opposed.
Saying that National Socialism resembles Libertarianism is absurd. They prescribe strong unbridled authority to solve and protect from society's ills at the expense of individual liberty and actively interfere in the market. They're also diametrically opposed.
Both on ONE axis. Being able to find plenty of racist Socialists or Corporatists who hope to use a lack of government oversight on business to manifest a segragated society doesn't change the meaning of the concepts.
The Nazi's are much more important to history for their social impact than their internal economic policy, so if a "wing" is going to be applied it should probably be Right. But that word really doesn't accurately describe the entire ideology so if it's going to be used it's absolutely worth elaborating or else Wikipedia continues to perpetuate the unwinnable shouting match over whether the resemblance to Soviet Authoritarianism or the Racial Supremacy actually matters more in gleefully painting your enemies as their spiritual successors.
...Sorry. I'm done. That this question was asked and is asked very frequently elsewhere really does convince me it needs to be better explained here. FusionTorch ( talk) 07:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Your source for classifying fascism as far-right is patently flawed. All traits described are common to all socialist/communist governments and then the text calls it "far-right". This is typical of left wing revisionism. Read Hayek to get a clue. 2600:1008:B12B:D2CF:F05D:BC70:B206:750A ( talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different – the very destruction of freedom itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B100:3549:304B:7E0B:32C1:34B9 ( talk) 18:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC) |
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last line of the overview: "The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied ..." both "neo-fascist" and "post-fascist" link to the same page: neo-facism. This implies that the pages are different. For the clarity that they have the same meaning, remove the link from the text: "post-fascist." 18atcskd2w ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The claim is made at the beginning that fascism is opposed to anarchy--and thus placed on the far-right of the traditional left-right spectrum. This is nonsensical as anarchy is as far right as you can go on the same traditional scale. 47.134.88.208 ( talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Look, I know fascism is a distorted view of nationalism, but something about how the article's written just doesn't sound neutral. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Has anyone provided a source that shows this "academic consensus" or better yet, a clear classification of fascism as right wing? It seems that, for all of the resistance to accommodate the many reasons given to place fascism on the left, there ought to at least be minimal evidence supporting the current right wing classification this article attempts. Hayek's argument was that the conflict of communism and fascism was an "in house conflict" as they were ideologies that were grouped together. He compared their conflict with a conflict between Catholics and Lutherans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.40.214 ( talk) 09:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, just looking for a consensus to change the introduction to a more accurate and detailed manner:
" Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a range of economic and social systems characterised by class collaboration, ethnic nationalism, authoritarianism, ultranationalism, dictatorial power and forcible suppression of opposition. Fascism promotes strong regimentation of society under traditionalism. Nationalisation of key industries important to the economy, in conjunction with the belief in third positionism to endeavour autarky. There are many varieties of fascism, such as Nazism, each with their own national variant related to a national identity. There is no single definition encapsulating all tenets and varieties, as it is often debated. Commonly speaking, it is opposed to the ideas of Communism, Marxism, Liberalism, globalism and anarchism. Fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum, all though some argue that it is not applicable to such a paradigm. Italian Fascism was the first to emerge during the early 20th-century Europe as a result of World War I, before it spread to other European countries. "
Let us consider if it is acceptable. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparktorn ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
No reliable sources given, an we're getting deep into WP:NOTAFORUM territory at this point. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Political ideologies do not necessarily fall somewhere on the left-right spectrum. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not suggest otherwise. In addition, note that in multiple places the article actually says that fascism takes things from various sides and is against things from various sides. Having an entire section on this misguided question even suggests that this point has actual importance which is completely misleading. I already proposed and edit which removed the few placements outside the particular section and the particular section completely. I guess the main question here is whether there is any good justification for including this stuff. -- Technokratisch ( talk) 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If nobody can see the elegance in these omissions and how they would completely pull the rug from under the feet of those anybody that claims that fascism is this or that wing then so be it. I really cannot understand why you all are so fond of this dichotomy. It is 2018. Why include it? Why? Why? Why? Emphasis on why?-- Technokratisch ( talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
|
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(x Remove) [1] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
(y Add) Fascism a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. </ref> [7] Large government overseeing is familiar as the far-left political goal like Communism (China for example) and in socialism (as in Venezuela currently (2018-current)). As socialists & communist see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)</ref> [8]. Hilter, a known Fascist, created his government and party know as National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) or short for Nazi </ref> [9]. As there party's actions dictated, Hitler took over Germany's economy, military and people by appointing himself a soul leader or Führer </ref> [10]; they were socialist extremist, practiced socialistic views while holding Germany people hostage of economic growth: therefor Fascism considered far-left on the political spectrum along with liberalism, Marxism and anarchism. 2600:8802:901:E400:9CFD:6D4A:A58:1623 ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't Giovanni Gentile get a mention in these various articles about Fascism, whether "left" or "right" forms of Fascism?
I refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6bSsaVL6gA and https://www.wnd.com/2017/08/fascisms-karl-marx-man-the-left-doesnt-want-you-to-meet/
It is history nonetheless, and it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.201.227 ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. 31.53.201.227 ( talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I was told I needed references supporting the fact that fascism is an left-wing extreme. So... here
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/history-of-left-wing-fascism
Tell me if I need more sources. If so I can find them.
Chris Roe234 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Unproductive and way off-topic chit chat. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jumpoutboy ( talk) 06:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC) "Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[6] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum." I don't see why "fascism" can't just exist as defined this way: "a form of radical athoritarianism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and/or/sometimes the economy." Because then I can apply it to, Antifa, and the left in general. Otherwise, can you tell me what Antifa is or the radical left when they use force to silence opposition and violently oppose political opposition within the society in a non-nationalist form of anarchy hard to define or understand? A movement seeming to stand for it's own conceptual moral authoritarian and dictatorial power through forcible suppression of nationalist patriotic opposition. They mobilize in regimental protest order that is devoid of independent thought and sing a party phrase. Are they communist social anarchist, and why do we have to confine fascist to a right-hand political wing in order to give them a talking point in that protest? I'm confused why the fascist definition seems to be antiquated in a 1950's Webster format that doesn't match the current applicable use of the term that society seems to have chosen unanimously as a reversal of meaning to address Antifa and the left in general. Can you clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpoutboy ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Agenda.... Lets examine agenda when we talk citations. Who are we sighting in those bracketed numbers, are they proponents of the left themselves, and if so, why do they get the authority to choose whether fascism is a right-wingers policy? Rhetorical, as I won't get an honest or unbiased answer about that. Moving along... The summation of the definition as stated is for one place in time, and ere the agenda may reside, agenda is secondary to a factual observation about the polity in question. In short, America, the United States thereof, being the place, the observance being the application by leftists of fascism to the right in this nation. Has it not struck anyone here, that to call an ultra-nationalist in America a fascist is an intellectual and political oxymoron? As America from the historic narrative has always been patriotic/ultra-national. Ergo, to be on the right as an American is to back the precepts and ordinances of the Constitution, and thereby, support leftist activism's right to exist, and to protest the very institutions we uphold. One literally can not be fascist in that regard, when the nationalism espoused is the full support of liberal democracy and republican libertarian dogma. If that is defined as opposite to fascism according to my dated 50's dictionary, which apparently is a good source to put into brackets, then it can not by definition be fascism at all. Hence, application of the term where it can not only be applied in social commentary, but also be observed in the persona non grata, seeking to apply the term and any leftist group or opinion seeking to keep it the "right's" burden in perception. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpoutboy ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Sorry, for not knowing how to sign my posts and all, this is the first thing I have ever typed on a wiki page. Jumpoutboy ( talk) 06:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
While fascism is ethnically and culturally far-right, the article fails to mention that it is economically far-left because one of the key ideas of fascism is that the economy is to be tightly controlled in order to benefit the state, and while businesses may technically be private, they are heavily influenced by a central government. The article literally implies it in the first paragraph with: "characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."
This is also why it has been argued that it is in some way incompatable with the left-right spectrum, because it is made up of ideas from both the extreme right and left.
Although due to the current sociopolitical paradigm in the western world as of today, I doubt that this inconsistency will be taken into account or even recognised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 ( talk • contribs)
it is economically far-left because one of the key ideas of fascism is that the economy is to be tightly controlled in order to benefit the statThat is not a left-wing political philosophy, and if you want to see the article changed, you need reliable sources to support your change. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
RoutledgeCompanion
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).university
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aristotle
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
/info/en/?search=German_Workers%27_Party
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
/info/en/?search=F%C3%BChrer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).